MEA considers releasing information at meetings

PALMER -- An off-the-cuff motion made by Matanuska Electric Association board member Scott Daugharty intended to provide audience members with more information at co-op meetings inadvertently floundered at the board's meeting last Monday, but it'll be back at the board's Jan. 13 meeting.

"It promotes greater understanding and a sense of ownership," Daugharty said when he spoke to the motion. "It'd be good for us to be a little more open in our discussion in the public."

Board member Bill Folsom amended the motion to stipulate that the packet be generated by MEA General Manager Wayne Carmony, and said he was concerned about the board providing information that could give away too much information.

"If it's pretty generic … if it's as benign as what CEA [Chugach Electric Association] gives out," Folsom said he'd support it.

Board member Michael Janecek asked what, in board members' packets, would be considered confidential.

Carmony said it was his belief that information provided to the board remained confidential until, according to MEA bylaws, a member makes a request "at a reasonable time and for a proper purpose in accordance with Alaska Statutes …"

Carmony added that he had concerns about how many copies of the information should be made, and said he was concerned about having such information lying around.

"Just to begin to disseminate information that is the board's business," Carmony said, "it seems imprudent to me."

Janecek, who had seconded Daugharty's motion, said he had seen similar information available at CEA meetings and felt it would be helpful to members.

"I think it's important, that members should be able to read the resolutions," Janecek said. "This book and the information provided to us should be the same information provided to any member at any time."

Carmony later clarified that some of the information -- retirement of capital credits and membership activity on the consent agenda, or some items discussed in the human resources department report -- should be considered confidential and should not be copied and made available to members attending the meeting.

Board member Linda Shattuck said the motion would just increase staff workload.

"I don't support the time or expense that's involved in making up new packets or new books," Shattuck said. She suggested instead putting a copy of the packet at MEA's front desk, where it would be available for review.

Board member Jim Hermon asked how many copies should be provided and Daugharty suggested that, given average meeting attendance, about five copies should fit the bill.

Hermon suggested limiting the amount of packets to reduce waste and make more work for staff.

"Please, don't be concerned about a few bucks for copy paper," Janecek said. "I betcha we can get by for under a sawbuck a meeting, so to speak."

Carmony asked that the board stipulate which portions of the agenda should be copied, and Daugharty amended his motion to stipulate that management reports, unfinished business and new business be included in the packet.

Folsom said he had changed his thinking about the motion and was no longer sure he could support it.

"It sounds pretty benign in some respects, to have this information available," Folsom said, adding that, once staff time had been put into collecting the information, just to have resolutions changed or parts of manager reports redacted, he wasn't sure it made sense. "I think we're going down a bad path here. I'm not against the way the amendment sounds, but I'm going to vote the whole thing down for right now."

When the amendment came to a vote, board members tied the decision and the motion failed, with Daugharty, Janecek and board member Lois Lester in favor.

Board President Larry DeVilbiss said he would have liked to break the tie and thereby pass the amendment, but he felt it was missing a critical point.

"There needs to be something … that clearly indicates there's to be no sensitive stuff in there," DeVilbiss said.

Shortly after DeVilbiss spoke, board members pointed out that the original motion specifies that the included information be non-sensitive.

"I don't know how to handle it now," DeVilbiss said. "I would suggest that we bring it up at the next meeting."

Since the main motion was still on the table, Daugharty moved to table discussion on the topic until the board's Jan. 13 meeting, a motion that passed unanimously.